Worldwide Sports News

Anti-tanking passed nearly unanimously, but the Memphis Grizzlies were the lone holdouts.

The new rules are proposed to get the NBA’s teams to be more competitive – to stop sitting their top players in an attempt to have a worse record and better chances at landing a top draft pick.

The Grizzlies voted against the new “3-2-1” anti-tanking proposal due to the provision prohibiting teams from securing top-five draft picks in three straight seasons, per ESPN.

When the Grizzlies finally gave up on Jaren Jackson Jr.’s pairing with Ja Morant as playoff contenders earlier this year, they moved their star center in a trade that netted them three first-round picks.

They will receive the highest pick first-round among the Jazz, Cavaliers and Timberwolves next season, with Utah being the weakest link of the trio this past season.

Utah will No. 2 overall in the 2026 NBA Draft and also selected Ace Bailey No. 5 overall last season.

After acquiring Jackson, it’s possible the Jazz are a solid team for the first time in nearly a decade, but the Grizzlies acquired that 2027 pick with the hopes that it lands in the top five.

If Utah does have a bottom-five record, due to the new rules their pick would be executed as the sixth overall pick in the draft, despite the Grizzlies owning it.

The Grizzlies have had a tough go of it over the past few years, as Morant has dealt with off-court issues, including a suspension, and they’ve fallen apart in two of the last three seasons.

Memphis ended the season with a 25-57 record, though they played well the year before, finishing 48-34.

Their 2023-24 record was a disappointing 27-55.

There is also a chance that the Grizzlies opt to uproot their franchise by trading Morant and attempting to tank for a better draft pick next season, though the new lottery odds make this significantly less likely.

The worst three records in the NBA previously had a 14 percent chance of the top draft pick, which has been reduced to 5.4 percent with the new rules taking effect immediately.

The fourth- to 10th-best records will have an 8.1 percent chance to land the top pick.

The Grizzlies had even caught some strays from LeBron James, who said that his least favorite place to play was Memphis, an opinion that has been talked about around league circles for years.

Memphis had the worst attendance in the NBA last season.

The Knicks are only four wins away from their first NBA championship since 1973, a long, aching wait that’s tortured generations of fans. Falling short of that goal, even to a Western Conference juggernaut in seven games, would be a disappointment offering no consolation prize to the mecca of basketball.

Still, it’s important to note that what the Knicks have accomplished on this run is nothing short of historic, no matter how it ends. They’ve already etched their names in the record books, whether a ring comes with it or not.

Since losing Game 3 of the first round in Atlanta, New York has rattled off 11 consecutive playoff wins, taking three straight against the Hawks before sweeping the 76ers and Cavaliers. That’s tied for the third-longest postseason winning streak in NBA history. One more win would tie the 1999 Spurs at 12, and three would pass the Warriors at 15. 

The wins alone are impressive -- over a Hawks team that had the third-best record in the NBA post-All-Star break, a Sixers team that had just toppled the Celtics with their three stars, and a Cavs team that has been a perennial top seed and acquired James Harden ahead of the deadline. 

But the way the Knicks have won has been in a category of its own.

New York avalanched these teams, with 10 wins coming by 11 or more points -- they beat Atlanta by 16, 29, and 51, before two additional 30-point victories over Philadelphia and another against Cleveland.

The degree to which the Knicks are skating by in the postseason is unmatched -- their 262-point differential in their 11 consecutive wins is the largest in any 11-game span in NBA history, regular season or postseason.

We’re at the stage where the competition is at its fiercest, every flaw is magnified, and the Knicks managed to look more dominant than any team ever. They also broke a few more records on the way.

No team has ever led by 47 points going into halftime of a playoff game until these Knicks did it against the Hawks in a closeout Game 6. A couple of games prior they tied the record for the most threes in a postseason game with 25.

Then there was Game 1 against Cleveland, when New York fell behind by as many as 22 points in the fourth quarter before improbably coming back and winning in overtime. That was the second-largest fourth quarter comeback in the history of the NBA playoffs, amid a streak of the greatest string of blowouts in the postseason.

The individual accolades haven’t met these standards after multiple record-breaking feats by Jalen Brunson in previous playoffs, but that’s kind of the point. The Knicks are truly playing team-first basketball, with each individual sacrificing to be the most optimal versions of themselves in pursuit of winning.

They haven’t even done it in one particular way. It took mid-series adjustments against the Hawks and Cavs to continue this run unabridged. Now the Knicks are in the Finals for the first time in 27 years, as the first NBA Cup Champions to do so, and the first team in franchise history to pull off multiple sweeps.

These things may not mean much at the moment to Knicks fans salivating over the Larry O’Brien trophy, and even less so if the Knicks were to lose. But after decades of toiling, failed promises, and broken rebuilds, it should.

Should New York fall short in the Finals, as tragic as that outcome would be to some, it shouldn’t take away from the magnitude of the run that got them there. Few teams have exhibited this type of command over a conference in such style, and that should be commended.

More than the streak and insane blowouts, the real history is the Knicks managing to break a quarter-century curse and rebuild themselves back into a contender with good management while finding the superstar hidden in plain sight. 

As we sit staring down another long Minnesota offseason, waiting for October to arrive and Timberwolves basketball to finally return, our minds inevitably drift toward the future.

That’s what NBA offseasons are for. They are five months of hope, speculation, trade machine screenshots, and fan bases convincing themselves that one move, just one move, is all that stands between them and a championship parade.

For Timberwolves fans, that process has already begun. The wounds from the loss to San Antonio are still fresh. Watching Victor Wembanyama dismantle Minnesota over six games wasn’t exactly a relaxing experience. Neither was watching Oklahoma City continue to establish itself as one of the premier powers in basketball. As Wolves fans survey the landscape of the Western Conference, one thing becomes abundantly clear: standing still is probably not enough.

The Wolves are good. Very good. They have five playoff series victories in three seasons to back up that claim. Anthony Edwards has established himself as one of the premier stars in basketball. Jaden McDaniels remains one of the league’s most versatile defenders. Rudy Gobert still anchors an elite defense. And yet despite all of that, Minnesota finds itself looking up at San Antonio and Oklahoma City and wondering how exactly it closes that final gap.

That’s where the offseason rumors begin. We’ve heard the Giannis Antetokounmpo whispers. We’ve talked about Kyrie Irving potentially becoming available if Dallas fully embraces the Cooper Flagg era. Now the latest name making the rounds is Zion Williamson, a player who somehow manages to be both one of the most tantalizing and terrifying trade targets in basketball at the exact same time.

Honestly? I understand why Wolves fans are intrigued. I also think it’s probably a mistake.

Zion entered the league as the No. 1 overall pick in 2019. He is still a player who, when healthy and engaged, can look like a force of nature unlike anything else in basketball. We’ve seen it firsthand. Wolves fans have watched Zion put his shoulder down and head downhill toward the basket looking less like a power forward and more like a runaway freight train.

He’s one of the few players in the league who can consistently generate efficient offense simply through sheer physical dominance. Pair that type of player next to Anthony Edwards and it’s easy to see why fans start daydreaming. You suddenly have two players capable of collapsing defenses. Two players capable of living at the rim. Two players capable of making life miserable for opponents.

When you start imagining a playoff series against Oklahoma City or San Antonio, it’s easy to picture Zion bulldozing his way through defenders while Edwards attacks from the perimeter. It’s easy to convince yourself that maybe this is the move that finally gets Minnesota over the hump.

That’s the seductive part of the argument. The problem is that every Zion discussion eventually runs into the same brick wall.

Reality.

There is a reason the Pelicans would even entertain moving him. Teams don’t trade players with Zion’s talent level because they want to. They trade them because something isn’t working.

For years, New Orleans has been waiting for Zion Williamson to become the centerpiece they envisioned when they drafted him. For years, they’ve been waiting for the fully realized version of the player that appears in highlight reels and All-Star discussions. And for years, they have largely been left waiting.

The injury history is impossible to ignore. The conditioning concerns have never completely disappeared. Questions about motivation continue to follow him around like a shadow. At some point, we have to stop treating those concerns as temporary obstacles and start acknowledging that they are part of the player profile. This is who Zion is right now: a tremendously gifted player whose availability remains a major question mark.

That’s where my hesitation begins. Because trading for Zion requires betting on the absolute best-case scenario. You’re betting that a player who has struggled to stay healthy suddenly becomes healthy. You’re betting that a player whose conditioning has frequently been questioned suddenly becomes fully committed. You’re betting that a player who has spent years frustrating one franchise suddenly arrives in Minnesota and immediately becomes the best version of himself.

Maybe it happens… but that’s a lot of maybes.

More importantly, it’s asking the Timberwolves to solve a problem that another organization has spent years trying unsuccessfully to solve. Historically speaking, that hasn’t exactly been Minnesota’s specialty. How many times have we seen this franchise convince itself it could be the place where another team’s reclamation project finally worked out?

Michael Beasley. Ricky Davis. Antoine Walker. D’Angelo Russell. Even Derrick Rose, as successful as that reunion briefly became. Some worked better than others. Some provided memorable moments. Some even became fan favorites, but none fundamentally altered the trajectory of the franchise.

The Timberwolves have spent much of their existence talking themselves into upside, potential, and what a player could become. More often than not, those gambles have failed to deliver the transformative impact everyone hoped for.

Now, to be fair, this organization is different than it was during many of those years. Anthony Edwards has changed the expectations. Tim Connelly has dramatically improved the talent evaluation process. The Wolves are no longer the dysfunctional franchise they once were. But even with all of that acknowledged, I still struggle with the idea that Zion Williamson suddenly discovers basketball enlightenment simply because he changes zip codes.

Especially when there’s a compelling argument that Minnesota would be better off investing in the player it already has. Because if we’re being completely honest, a Zion-for-Julius Randle discussion isn’t really about talent. It’s about trust.

Zion is younger. Zion is more explosive. Zion probably has a higher theoretical ceiling. But Julius Randle has something Zion doesn’t possess: Availability.

That’s not a small thing. Availability matters. Particularly in a Western Conference where every playoff series feels like a war of attrition.

Randle’s postseason against San Antonio was disappointing. There’s no reason to sugarcoat that. The Wolves needed more from him. There were stretches where he disappeared when Minnesota desperately needed a secondary offensive star. But over the course of the season, Randle also showed why the Wolves acquired him in the first place. When he’s engaged and playing his best basketball, he gives Minnesota another player capable of generating offense when everything breaks down. He can bully smaller defenders. He can create his own shot. He can facilitate. He can take pressure off Edwards.

The frustrating part is that version doesn’t always show up. But at least you know he’s going to be on the floor. That’s not something you can automatically assume with Zion.

And ultimately, that’s why I keep coming back to the same conclusion. Even if Zion has the higher upside, the probability distribution of outcomes is heavily tilted toward disappointment. There’s simply a much greater chance that this move makes Minnesota worse than there is that it turns them into champions.

Perhaps the biggest issue of all is that it doesn’t actually solve the Wolves’ biggest problem: the point guard position. Trading Randle for Zion doesn’t recalibrate the roster and improve the ball handling. It doesn’t address the fact that Mike Conley is no longer a reliable starter and that Minnesota still lacks a true long-term answer at lead guard.

A Randle for Zion traide is essentially swapping one power forward for another and hoping the rest sorts itself out. Which is why, as controversial as it may sound, a Kyrie Irving discussion actually makes more sense to me. Not because Kyrie is without risk – far from it. Age is a factor, the injury history is real, the contract isn’t small, but at least the move addresses an actual weakness.

Kyrie immediately changes the geometry of the offense. He punishes teams for loading up on Edwards. He gives Minnesota another creator who can generate offense late in games. He allows Naz Reid to potentially slide into a larger role while maintaining balance throughout the lineup. You can argue whether it’s the right move. You can argue whether it’s realistic. But the logic is clear.

With Zion, I’m not convinced it is.

At the end of the day, this is why Tim Connelly gets paid the big bucks.

The Wolves are entering a fascinating offseason. They have enough talent to compete. They have enough flaws that standing pat feels dangerous. They’re operating within financial constraints. They’re navigating an increasingly brutal Western Conference. Every decision matters. Every move carries risk.

And while Zion Williamson is undoubtedly one of the most intriguing names that could become available, I keep coming back to the same question: does this move actually solve Minnesota’s problems? Or does it simply replace one set of questions with another?

From where I sit, the answer feels pretty obvious.

The temptation is understandable, the upside is intoxicating, but championships are usually built by making smart decisions, not by chasing the most exciting possibility on the board.

For now, I’ll pass on Zion.

In recent years, I’ve come to wonder whether I’m on the autism spectrum.

Then again, I kind of think everyone’s on the spectrum now. That could be selection bias – I’m mildly autistic, so I gravitate to mildly autistic people. It could be a reflection of bastardization of diagnostic and clinical language. It could also just be accurate.

One symptom of autism is “a profound, often unwavering commitment to fairness, equality, and moral correctness”. I used to find this annoying. It felt like a sneaky way of virtue signalling. “Oh no, I have a neurodevelopmental disorder that makes me a really good person!“. Now, I feel like it’s another symptom I might endorse:

Because I am absolutely seething about the NBA’s new anti-tanking reforms, even if they might benefit my beloved Houston Rockets.

New NBA tanking rules patently unfair

So, the Memphis Grizzlies acquired three future first-round picks from the Utah Jazz in exchange for Jaren Jackson Jr. The new rules state that a team’s pick can’t convey in the top five for three consecutive seasons. The Jazz have picked in the top five for two straight years, so now, their 2027 pick can’t land there:

Even though the Grizzlies own it.

If anyone can locate the iota of sense that makes, someone tell me. I’ve seen some attempts to justify the rule, but they have been feeble.

Some have said the Grizzlies should be punished for trading Jackson Jr. in a deliberate bid to get worse. Hogwash. Teams can’t get younger anymore? This is especially outlandish in an increasingly punitive CBA. So the Grizzlies have to keep Jackson Jr.’s salary on the books, even though they’re not winning, or else they’re punished? The league is bullying one of their smallest markets directly into a space between a rock and a hard place.

“Well, the Jazz acquired Jackson Jr. so they could stop tanking. They likely weren’t sending the Grizzlies a high lottery pick anyway”. Likely true, and incidentally, not the point. Who’s to say Jackson Jr. doesn’t suffer a season-ending injury on day one?

The official position from the league is that they didn’t want to create an imbalance in the value of acquired vs original picks. Sure, but the Grizzlies acquired the pick with the understanding that it held a certain value. The broader point is that you can’t change the rules of a game in the middle of the game. You buy a lottery ticket with the understanding that you probably won’t win the lottery. You would not buy a lottery ticket knowing that it was impossible to win the lottery.

It’s garbage. It’s unfair by any measure.

Does it affect the Rockets?

Rockets could benefit from rule changes

When Rafael Stone traded the second-best player in the history of an old NBA franchise for nothing but draft capital, he had a vision. Just two years later, he would state on record that “the NBA punishes the middle…that’s just the way the system is set up.”

We can safely assume that principle informed his decision-making process.

The rule changes incentivise the middle. In theory, the Rockets also had the rug pulled out from under them. It shouldn’t hurt them, but that’s mere serendipity. Luckily, the teams that owe Houston picks (the Nets, Suns, and Mavericks) are likely to land broadly in the middle going forward.

This could also open up paths for Houston. The fear of regression should be less prominent. If they ultimately decide (re: realize) that Alperen Sengun and Amen Thompson can’t play together, retooling at the expense of a handful of regular-season wins will be more palpable with the flattened odds.

In terms of the NBA viewing experience, this may not even be so bad. Personally, my least favorite era of Rockets basketball since becoming a fan in (roughly) 1998 was the Louis Scola / Kevin Martin era. If the Rockets had a chance of adding a young John Wall to the 2009-10 team that went 42-40, it would have piqued my interest.

Personally, I’ve never considered tanking a major issue. Most of this feels like fear-mongering designed to pander to the gambling companies. Still, nobody should be fiercely opposed to disincentivizing the practice. If you love tanking, you’re weird.

What I am (as it turns out) passionately opposed to is unfairness. There is no rational reason why the league couldn’t amend the rules to “grandfather in” the Grizzlies’ incoming pick.

You don’t need any diagnoses to understand that.